Democrats bent on the ‘hard things’

Everyone knows there are differences between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans use PCs; Democrats use Macs. Republicans drive minivans and SUVs while Democrats choose VWs and Volvos. Republicans are Baptists and Democrats Catholic. The list goes on. We recognize the differences, but do we know why?

As with many social phenomena, the explanations are shrouded in history and mystery. Social scientists would contend that a confluence of cultural, ethnic and genetic forces made us into two different tribes. But this, we protest, is America, where everyone is free to be their own person. You are not expected to be what your granddaddy was. In the United States, we are allowed to wander off the reservation to join the party that best fits our own circumstances or worldview.

{mosads}Political economists might say our parties are little more than manifestations of social class or economic divisions. Republicans are the upper crust and Democrats are the working stiffs. But there are too many downscale tea-partiers and limousine liberals for the social-class theory to be entirely satisfactory.

Reflecting recently on the space program and 1969 moon landing, I was struck by one possible explanation for our political divisions. Democrats, like their brightest star John Kennedy, seem to be attracted to what he called “the hard things.” JFK’s famous speech at Rice University in 1962 is a manifesto for Democrats who seek to achieve the difficult. Kennedy asked his Rice audience, rhetorically, “Why does Rice play Texas?” The answer, of course, is that Rice enjoys the challenge. Rice has beaten Texas only twice in the 40-plus meetings since JFK asked why, but the Owls keep showing up. It’s a Democrat thing.

Republicans, on the other hand, assign primacy to practicality. They want to do the doable before attempting the unattainable. Republicans are also good managers of the difficult. Once Democrat Kennedy laid down the challenging goal of going to the moon, setting in motion the impossible dream, Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were there at the finish line to welcome the astronauts home. In some sense, the space program is the perfect unifier of Democrats and Republicans. It requires both dreamers and engineers to get the job done, Mac-heads and PCs.

Looking at old video clips of the giddy ticker-tape parades in New York and Chicago for Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, it’s clear that both Republicans and Democrats were unified in celebrating the great achievements of these three men and the thousands of others at NASA who supported them. Despite the divisive and fractious issues of the late ’60s, the two tribes of American politics came together in a great celebration.

Now we find ourselves in similar territory. We have an ambitious young president who wants to do the impossible, and do it quickly. He wants to end a deep recession, overhaul the healthcare system and make over world affairs. He’s taking on the challenges and spending a lot of our money to bankroll his big dreams. Chances are there are enough sensible Republicanesque Democrats to put the brakes on Barack Obama’s shoot-for-the-moon goals. But if there aren’t, will the president’s appetite for the challenging be his undoing, opening the door to a Republican successor?

Unlike the aftermath of America’s man-on-the-moon achievement, I cannot see a ticker-tape parade in the offing as healthcare reformers slide through Times Square in long dark limos, cheered on wildly by adoring New Yorkers. High school bands from Texas won’t spend days on buses to march in celebration of a great national achievement like fixing the mortgage crisis. Republicans and Democrats aren’t likely to be brought together by Obama’s quest for these hard things.

David Hill is a member of the research faculty at Auburn University and has been a Republican pollster since 1984.